Theological-Political Treatise:Chapter 2.
- OF PROPHETS.

It follows from the last chapter that, as I have said, the prophets were
endowed with unusually vivid
imaginations,
and not with unusually, perfect
minds. This conclusion is amply sustained by Scripture, for we are told
that Solomon
was the wisest of men, but had no special faculty of
prophecy.
Heman, Calcol, and Dara, though men of great talent, were not prophets,
whereas uneducated countrymen, nay, even women, such as Hagar, Abraham's
handmaid, were thus gifted. Nor is this contrary to ordinary experience
and reason. Men of great imaginative power are less fitted for
abstractreasoning,
whereas those who excel in intellect
and its use keep their
imagination
more restrained and controlled, holding it in subjection, so to
speak, lest it should usurp the place of reason.

Thus to suppose that knowledge of natural and spiritual phenomena can be
gained from the prophetic books, is an utter mistake, which I shall
endeavour to expose, as I think philosophy, the age, and the question itself
demand. I care not for the girdings of
superstition, for superstition is
the bitter enemy of all true knowledge and true morality. Yes; it has
come to this! Men who openly confess that they can form no idea of God,
and only know Him through created things, of which they know not the causes,
can unblushingly, accuse philosophers of Atheism.

Treating the question
methodically, I will show that prophecies varied, not only according to
the imagination
and physical temperament of the prophet, but also according
to his particular opinions; and further that
prophecy never rendered the
prophet wiser than he was before. But I will first discuss the
assurance of truth which the prophets received, for this is akin to the
subject-matter of the chapter, and will serve to elucidate somewhat our
present point.

Imagination does not,
in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence
prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's
revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." God also says to
Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses
bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral.
Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." And
Jesus Christ
warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24).
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false
revelations;
and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of the prophets of Ahab.

Although these instances go to prove that
revelation is open to doubt,
it nevertheless contains, as we have said, a considerable element of
certainty, for God never deceives the good, nor His chosen, but (according
to the ancient proverb, and as appears in the history of Abigail and her
speech), God uses the good as instruments of goodness, and the wicked as
means to execute His wrath. This may be seen from the case of Micaiah
above quoted; for although God had determined to deceive Ahab, through
prophets, He made use of lying prophets; to the good prophet He revealed the
truth, and did not forbid his proclaiming it.

Still the certitude of
prophecy, remains, as I have said, merely,
moral; for no one can justify himself before God, nor boast that he is an
instrument for God's goodness. Scripture itself teaches and shows that
God led away David to number the people, though it bears ample
witness to David's piety.

Although Scripture does not always make mention of a sign, we must
nevertheless suppose that a sign was always vouchsafed; for Scripture does
not always relate every, condition and circumstance (as many, have
remarked), but rather takes them for granted. We may, however, admit
that no sign was needed when the
prophecy declared nothing that was not
already contained in the law of
Moses, because it was confirmed by that law.
For instance, Jeremiah's prophecy, of the destruction of Jerusalem was
confirmed by the prophecies of other prophets, and by the threats in the
law, and, therefore, it needed no sign ; whereas Hananiah, who, contrary to
all the prophets, foretold the speedy restoration of the state, stood in
need of a sign, or he would have been in doubt as to the truth of his
prophecy,
until it was confirmed by facts. "The prophet which
prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to
pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him."

As, then, the certitude afforded to the prophet by signs was not
mathematical (i.e. did not necessarily follow from the perception of the
thing perceived or seen), but only moral, and as the signs were only given
to convince the prophet, it follows that such signs were given according to
the opinions and capacity of each prophet, so that a sign which
convince one prophet would fall far short of convincing another who was
imbued with different opinions. Therefore the signs varied according to
the individual prophet.

It varied according to disposition, in this way: if a prophet was
cheerful, victories, peace, and events which make men glad, were revealed to
him; in that he was naturally more likely to imagine such things. If,
on the contrary, he was melancholy, wars, massacres, and calamities were
revealed; and so, according as a prophet was merciful, gentle, quick to
anger, or severe, he was more fitted for one kind of
revelation than
another. It varied according to the temper of
imagination in this way:
if a prophet was cultivated he perceived the mind of God in a cultivated
way, if he was confused he perceived it confusedly. And so with
revelations
perceived through visions. If a prophet was a countryman he
saw visions of oxen, cows, and the like; if he was a soldier, he saw
generals and armies; if a courtier, a royal throne, and so on.

Lastly, prophecy
varied according to the opinions held by the prophets;
for instance, to the Magi, who believed in the follies of astrology, the
birth of Christ
was revealed through the vision of a star in the East.
To the augurs of Nebuchadnezzar the destruction of Jerusalem was revealed
through entrails, whereas the king himself inferred it from oracles and the
direction of arrows which he shot into the air. To prophets who
believed that man acts from free choice and by his own power, God was
revealed as standing apart from and ignorant of future human actions.
All of which we will illustrate from Scripture.

The first point is proved from the case of Elisha, who, in order to
prophecy to
Jehoram, asked for a harp, and was unable to perceive the Divine
purpose till he had been recreated by its music; then, indeed, he prophesied
to Jehoram and to his allies glad tidings, which previously he had been
unable to attain to because he was angry with the king, and these who are
angry with anyone can imagine evil of him, but not good. The theory
that God does not reveal Himself to the angry or the sad, is a mere dream:
for God revealed to
Moses while angry, the terrible slaughter of the
firstborn, and did so without the intervention of a harp. To Cain in
his rage, God was revealed, and to Ezekiel, impatient with anger, was
revealed the contumacy and wretchedness of the Jews. Jeremiah,
miserable and weary of life, prophesied the disasters of the Hebrews, so
that Josiah would not consult him, but inquired of a woman, inasmuch as it
was more in accordance with womanly nature that God should reveal His mercy
thereto. So, Micaiah never prophesied good to Ahab, though other true
prophets had done so, but invariably evil. Thus we see that individual
prophets were by temperament more fitted for one sort of
revelation than another.

The style of the prophecy
also varied according to the eloquence of the
individual prophet. The prophecies of Ezekiel and Amos are not written
in a cultivated style like those of Isaiah and Nahum, but more rudely.
Any Hebrew scholar who wishes to inquire into this point more closely, and
compares chapters of the different prophets treating of the same subject,
will find great dissimilarity of style. Compare, for instance, chap. i.
of the courtly Isaiah, verse 11 to verse 20, with chap. v. of the countryman
Amos, verses 21-24. Compare also the order and reasoning of the
prophecies of Jeremiah, written in Idumaea (chap. xlix.), with the order and
reasoning of Obadiah. Compare, lastly, Isa. xl:19, 20, and xliv:8, with
Hosea viii:6, and xiii:2. And so on.

A due consideration of these passage will clearly show us that God has
no particular style in speaking, but, according to the learning and capacity
of the prophet, is cultivated, compressed, severe, untutored, prolix, or
obscure.

There was, moreover, a certain variation in the visions vouchsafed to
the prophets, and in the symbols by which they expressed them, for Isaiah
saw the glory of the Lord departing from the Temple in a different form from
that presented to Ezekiel. The Rabbis, indeed, maintain that both
visions were really the same, but that Ezekiel, being a countryman, was
above measure impressed by it, and therefore set it forth in full detail;
but unless there is a trustworthy tradition on the subject, which I do not
for a moment believe, this theory is plainly an invention. Isaiah saw
seraphim with six wings, Ezekiel beasts with four wings; Isaiah saw God
clothed and sitting on a royal throne, Ezekiel saw Him in the likeness of a
fire; each doubtless saw God under the form in which he usually imagined
Him.

Further, the visions varied in clearness as well as in details; for the
revelations
of Zechariah were too obscure to be understood by the prophet
without explanation, as appears from his narration of them; the visions of
Daniel could not be understood by him even after they had been explained,
and this obscurity did not arise from the difficulty of the matter revealed
(for being merely human affairs, these only transcended human capacity in
being future), but solely in the fact that Daniel's
imagination was not so
capable for prophecy
while he was awake as while he was asleep; and this is
further evident from the fact that at the very beginning of the vision he
was so terrified that he almost despaired of his strength. Thus, on
account of the inadequacy of his
imagination
and his strength, the things
revealed were so obscure to him that he could not understand them even after
they had been explained. Here we may note that the
words heard by
Daniel, were, as we have shown above, simply imaginary, so that it is hardly
wonderful that in his frightened state he imagined them so confusedly and
obscurely that afterwards he could make nothing of them. Those who say
that God did not wish to make a clear revelation, do not seem to have read
the words of the angel, who expressly says that he came to make the prophet
understand what should befall his people in the latter days (Dan. x:14).

Lastly, the prophets, to whom it was revealed that God would take away
Elijah, wished to persuade Elisha that he had been taken somewhere where
they would find him; showing sufficiently clearly that they had not
understood God's revelation aright.

There is no need to set this out more amply, for nothing is more plain
in the Bible than that God endowed some prophets with far greater gifts of
prophecy
than others. But I will show in greater detail and length, for
I consider the point more important, that the prophecies varied according to
the opinions previously embraced by the prophets, and that the prophets held
diverse and even contrary opinions and prejudices. (I speak, be it
understood, solely of matters speculative, for in regard to uprightness and
morality the case is widely different.) From thence I shall conclude
that prophecy
never rendered the prophets more learned, but left them with
their former opinions, and that we are, therefore, not at all bound to
trust them in matters of intellect.

Everyone has been strangely hasty in affirming that the prophets knew
everything within the scope of human
intellect; and, although certain
passages of Scripture plainly affirm that the prophets were in certain
respects ignorant, such persons would rather say that they do not
understand the passages than admit that there was anything which the
prophets did not know; or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words away
from their evident meaning.

If either of these proceedings is allowable we may as well shut our
Bibles, for vainly shall we attempt to prove anything from them if their
plainest passages may be classed among obscure and impenetrable mysteries,
or if we may put any interpretation on them which we fancy. For
instance, nothing is more clear in the Bible than that Joshua, and perhaps
also the author who wrote his history, thought that the sun revolves round
the earth, and that the earth is fixed, and further that the sun for a
certain period remained still. Many, who will not admit any movement in
the heavenly bodies, explain away the passage till it seems to mean
something quite different; others, who have learned to philosophize more
correctly, and understand that the earth moves while the sun is still, or at
any rate does not revolve round the earth, try with all their might to wrest
this meaning from Scripture, though plainly nothing of the sort is
intended. Such quibblers excite my wonder! Are we, forsooth, bound
to believe that Joshua the Soldier was a learned astronomer? or that a
miracle could not be revealed to him, or that the light of the sun could not
remain longer than usual above the horizon, without his knowing the cause?
To me both alternatives appear ridiculous, and therefore I would
rather say, that Joshua was ignorant of the true cause of the lengthened
day, and that he and the whole host with him thought that the sun moved
round the earth every day, and that on that particular occasion it stood
still for a time, thus causing the light to remain longer; and I would
say, that they did not conjecture that, from the amount of snow in the air
(see Josh. x:11), the refraction may have been greater than usual, or that
there may have been some other cause which we will not now inquire into.

So also the sign of the shadow going back was revealed to Isaiah
according to his understanding; that is, as proceeding from a going
backwards of the sun; for he, too, thought that the sun moves and that the
earth is still; of parhelia he perhaps never even dreamed. We may
arrive at this conclusion without any, scruple, for the sign could really
have come to pass, and have been predicted by Isaiah to the king, without
the prophet being aware of the real cause.

With regard to the building of the Temple by
Solomon, if it was really
dictate by God we must maintain the same doctrine: namely, that all the
measurements were revealed according to the opinions and understanding of
the king; for as we are not bound to believe that
Solomon was a
mathematician, we may affirm that he was ignorant of the true ratio between
the circumference and the diameter of a circle, and that, like the
generality of workmen, he thought that it was as three to one. But if
it is allowable to declare that we do not understand the passage, in good
sooth I know nothing in the Bible that we can understand; for the process of
building is there narrated simply and as a mere matter of history. If,
again, it is permitted to pretend that the passage has another meaning, and
was written as it is from some reason unknown to us, this is no less than a
complete subversal of the Bible; for every absurd and evil invention of
human perversity could thus, without detriment to Scriptural authority, be
defended and fostered. Our conclusion is in no wise impious, for though
Solomon, Isaiah, Joshua, &c. were prophets, they were none the less men, and
as such not exempt from human shortcomings.

Not only in matters of this kind, but in others more important, the
prophets could be, and in fact were, ignorant; for they taught nothing
special
about the Divine attributes, but held quite ordinary notions about God, and
to these notions their
revelations were adapted, as I will
demonstrate by ample Scriptural testimony; from all which one may easily see
that they were praised and commended, not so much for the sublimity and
eminence of their
intellect as for their piety and faithfulness.

Adam, the first man to whom God was revealed, did not know that He is
omnipotent and omniscient; for he hid himself from Him, and attempted to
make excuses for his fault before God, as though he had had to do with a
man; therefore to him also was God revealed according to his understanding -
that is, as being unaware of his situation or his sin, for Adam
heard, or seemed to hear, the Lord walking, in the garden, calling him and
asking him where he was; and then, on seeing his shamefacedness, asking him
whether he had eaten of the forbidden fruit. Adam evidently only knew
the Deity as the Creator of all things. To Cain also God was revealed,
according to his understanding, as ignorant of human affairs, nor was a
higher conception of the Deity required for repentance of his sin.

To Laban the Lord revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, because Laban
believed that each nation had its own special divinity (see Gen. xxxi:29).
Abraham also knew not that God is omnipresent, and has foreknowledge of
all things; for when he heard the sentence against the inhabitants of Sodom,
he prayed that the Lord should not execute it till He had ascertained
whether they all merited such punishment; for he said (see Gen. xviii:24),
"Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city," and in accordance
with this belief God was revealed to him; as Abraham imagined, He spake
thus: "I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether
according to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and, if not, I will know."
Further, the Divine testimony concerning Abraham asserts nothing but
that he was obedient, and that he "commanded his household after him that
they should keep the way of the Lord" (Gen. xviii:19); it does not state
that he held sublime conceptions of the Deity.

Moses,
also, was not sufficiently aware that God is omniscient, and
directs human actions by His sole decree, for although God Himself says that
the Israelites should hearken to Him,
Moses still considered the matter
doubtful and repeated, "But if they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my
voice." To him in like manner God was revealed as taking no part in,
and as being ignorant of, future human actions: the Lord gave him two signs
and said, "And it shall come to pass that if they will not believe thee,
neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the
voice of the latter sign; but if not, thou shalt take of the water of the
river," &c. Indeed, if any one considers without prejudice the recorded
opinions of Moses,
he will plainly see that Moses conceived the Deity as a
Being Who has always existed, does exist, and always will exist, and for
this cause he calls Him by the name Jehovah, which in Hebrew signifies these
three phases of existence: as to His nature,
Moses only taught that He is
merciful, gracious, and exceeding jealous, as appears from many passages in
the Pentateuch. Lastly, he believed and taught that this Being was so
different from all other beings, that He could not be expressed by the image
of any visible thing; also, that He could not be looked upon, and that not
so much from inherent impossibility as from human infirmity; further, that
by reason of His power He was without equal and unique.
Moses admitted,
indeed, that there were beings (doubtless by the plan and command of the
Lord) who acted as God's vicegerents - that is, beings to whom God had given
the right, authority, and power to direct nations, and to provide and care
for them; but he taught that this Being Whom they were bound to obey was
the highest and Supreme God, or (to use the Hebrew phrase) God of gods, and
thus in the song (Exod. xv:11) he exclaims, "Who is like unto Thee, O Lord,
among the gods?" and Jethro says (Exod. xviii:11), "Now I know that the Lord
is greater than all gods." That is to say, "I am at length compelled to
admit to Moses
that Jehovah is greater than all gods, and that His power
is unrivalled." We must remain in doubt whether
Moses thought that
these beings who acted as God's vicegerents were created by Him, for he
has stated nothing, so far as we know, about their creation and origin.
He further taught that this Being had brought the visible world into order
from Chaos, and had given Nature her germs, and therefore that He
possesses supreme right and power over all things; further, that by reason
of this supreme right and power He had chosen for Himself alone the Hebrew
nation and a certain strip of territory, and had handed over to the care of
other gods substituted by Himself the rest of the nations and territories,
and that therefore He was called the God of Israel and the God of Jerusalem,
whereas the other gods were called the gods of the Gentiles. For this
reason the Jews believed that the strip of territory which God had chosen
for Himself, demanded a Divine worship quite apart and different from the
worship which obtained elsewhere, and that the Lord would not suffer the
worship of other gods adapted to other countries. Thus they thought
that the people whom the king of Assyria had brought into Judaea were torn
in pieces by lions because they knew not the worship of the National
Divinity (2 Kings xvii:25).

Jacob, according to Aben Ezra's opinion, therefore admonished his sons
when he wished them to seek out a new country, that they should prepare
themselves for a new worship, and lay aside the worship of strange gods -
that is, of the gods of the land where they were (Gen. xxxv:2, 3).

David, in telling Saul that he was compelled by the king's persecution
to live away from his country, said that he was driven out from the heritage
of the Lord, and sent to worship other gods (1 Sam. xxvi:19). Lastly,
he believed that this Being or Deity had His habitation in the heavens
(Deut. xxxiii:27), an opinion very common among the Gentiles.

If we now examine the revelations to
Moses, we shall find that they
were accommodated to these opinions; as he believed that the Divine Nature
was subject to the conditions of mercy, graciousness, &c., so God was
revealed to him in accordance with his idea and under these attributes (see
Exodus xxxiv:6, 7, and the second commandment). Further it is related
(Ex. xxxiii:18) that
Moses asked of God that he might behold Him, but as
Moses (as we have said) had formed no mental image of God, and God (as I
have shown) only revealed Himself to the prophets in accordance with the
disposition of their imagination,
He did not reveal Himself in any form.
This, I repeat, was because the
imagination of
Moses was unsuitable,
for other prophets bear witness that they saw the Lord; for instance,
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, &c. For this reason God answered
Moses, "Thou
canst not see My face;" and inasmuch as Moses believed that God can be
looked upon - that is, that no contradiction of the Divine nature is therein
involved (for otherwise he would never have preferred his request) - it is
added, "For no one shall look on Me and live," thus giving a reason in
accordance with Moses'
idea, for it is not stated that a contradiction of
the Divine nature would be involved, as was really the case, but that the
thing would not come to pass because of human infirmity.

When God would reveal to
Moses that the Israelites, because they
worshipped the calf, were to be placed in the same category as other
nations, He said (ch. xxxiii:2, 3), that He would send an angel (that is, a
being who should have charge of the Israelites, instead of the Supreme
Being), and that He Himself would no longer remain among them; thus leaving
Moses
no ground for supposing that the Israelites were more beloved by God
than the other nations whose guardianship He had entrusted to other beings
or angels (vide verse 16).

Lastly, as Moses
believed that God dwelt in the heavens, God was
revealed to him as coming down from heaven on to a mountain, and in order to
talk with the Lord
Moses went up the mountain, which he certainly need not
have done if he could have conceived of God as omnipresent.

The Israelites knew scarcely anything of God, although He was revealed
to them; and this is abundantly evident from their transferring, a few days
afterwards, the honour and worship due to Him to a calf, which they believed
to be the god who had brought them out of Egypt. In truth, it is
hardly likely that men accustomed to the
superstitions of Egypt,
uncultivated and sunk in most abject slavery, should have held any sound
notions about the Deity, or that
Moses should have taught them anything
beyond a rule of right living; inculcating it not like a philosopher, as the
result of freedom, but like a lawgiver compelling them to be moral by
legal authority. Thus the rule of right living, the worship and love
of God, was to them rather a bondage than the true liberty, the gift and
grace of the Deity.
Moses bid them love God and keep His law, because
they had in the past received benefits from Him (such as the
deliverance from slavery in Egypt), and further terrified them with threats
if they transgressed His commands, holding out many promises of good if they
should observe them; thus treating them as parents treat irrational
children. It is, therefore, certain that they knew not the excellence of
virtue and the true happiness.

Jonah thought that he was fleeing from the sight of God, which seems
to show that he too held that God had entrusted the care of the nations
outside Judaea to other substituted powers. No one in the whole of the
Old Testament speaks more rationally of God than
Solomon, who in fact
surpassed all the men of his time in natural ability. Yet he
considered himself above the law (esteeming it only to have been given for
men without reasonable and intellectual grounds for their actions), and made
small account of the laws concerning kings, which are mainly three: nay, he
openly violated them (in this he did wrong, and acted in a manner unworthy
of a philosopher, by indulging in sensual pleasure), and taught that all
Fortune's favours to mankind are vanity, that humanity has no nobler gift
than wisdom, and no greater punishment than folly.
See Proverbs xvi:22, 23.

The expressed ideas of Ezekiel seemed so diverse
from those of
Moses to the Rabbis who have left us the extant prophetic
books (as is told in the treatise of Sabbathus, i:13, 2), that they had
serious thoughts of omitting his prophecy from the canon, and would
doubtless have thus excluded it if a certain Hananiah had not undertaken to
explain it; a task which (as is there narrated) he with great zeal and
labour accomplished. How he did so does not sufficiently appear,
whether it was by writing a commentary which has now perished, or by
altering Ezekiel's words and audaciously - striking out phrases according to
his fancy. However this may be, chapter xviii. certainly does not seem
to agree with Exodus xxxiv:7, Jeremiah xxxii:18, &c.

Samuel believed that the Lord never repented of anything He had
decreed (1 Sam. xv:29), for when Saul was sorry for his sin, and wished to
worship God and ask for forgiveness, Samuel said that the Lord would not go
back from his decree.

To Jeremiah, on the other hand, it was revealed that, "If that nation
against whom I (the Lord) have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will
repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. If it do evil in my
sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I
said I would benefit them" (Jer. xviii:8-10). Joel (ii:13) taught that
the Lord repented Him only of evil. Lastly, it is clear from Gen iv: 7
that a man can overcome the temptations of sin, and act righteously; for
this doctrine is told to Cain, though, as we learn from Josephus and the
Scriptures, he never did so overcome them. And this agrees with the
chapter of Jeremiah just cited, for it is there said that the Lord repents
of the good or the evil pronounced, if the men in question change their ways
and manner of life. But, on the other hand, Paul (Rom.ix:10) teaches
as plainly as possible that men have no control over the temptations of the
flesh save by the special vocation and grace of God. And when
(Rom. iii:5 and vi:19) he attributes righteousness to man, he corrects
himself as speaking merely humanly and through the infirmity of the flesh.

We have now more than sufficiently proved our point, that God adapted
revelations
to the understanding and opinions of the prophets, and that in
matters of theory without bearing on charity or morality the prophets could
be, and, in fact, were, ignorant, and held conflicting opinions. It
therefore follows that we must by no means go to the prophets for knowledge,
either of natural or of spiritual phenomena.

We have determined, then, that we are only bound to believe in the
prophetic writings, the object and substance of the
revelation; with regard
to the details, every one may believe or not, as he likes.

For instance, the revelation
to Cain only teaches us that God
admonished him to lead the true life, for such alone is the object and
substance of the revelation, not doctrines concerning free will and
philosophy. Hence, though the freedom of the will is clearly implied
in the words of the admonition, we are at liberty to hold a contrary
opinion, since the words and reasons were adapted to the understanding of
Cain.

So, too, the revelation
to Micaiah would only teach that God revealed
to him the true issue of the battle between Ahab and Aram; and this is all
we are bound to believe. Whatever else is contained in the
revelation
concerning the true and the false Spirit of God, the army of heaven standing
on the right hand and on the left, and all the other details, does not
affect us at all. Everyone may believe as much of it as his reason
allows.

The reasonings by which the Lord displayed His power to Job (if they
really were a revelation, and the author of the history is narrating, and
not merely, as some suppose, rhetorically adorning his own conceptions),
would come under the same category - that is, they were adapted to Job's
understanding, for the purpose of convincing him, and are not universal,
or for the convincing of all men.

We can come to no different conclusion with respect to the reasonings
of Christ,
by which He convicted the Pharisees of pride and ignorance, and
exhorted His disciples to lead the true life. He adapted them to each
man's opinions and principles. For instance, when He said to the
Pharisees (Matt. xii:26), "And if Satan cast out devils, his house is
divided against itself, how then shall his kingdom stand?" He only
wished to convince the Pharisees according to their own principles, not to
teach that there are devils, or any kingdom of devils. So, too,
when He said to His disciples (Matt. viii:10), "See that ye despise not one
of these little ones, for I say unto you that their angels," &c., He merely
desired to warn them against pride and despising any of their fellows, not
to insist on the actual reason given, which was simply adopted in order to
persuade them more easily.

Lastly, we should say, exactly the same of the apostolic signs and
reasonings, but there is no need to go further into the subject. If I
were to enumerate all the passages of Scripture addressed only to
individuals, or to a particular man's understanding, and which cannot,
without great danger to philosophy,
be defended as Divine doctrines, I
should go far beyond the brevity at which I aim. Let it suffice, then,
to have indicated a few instances of general application, and let the
curious reader consider others by himself. Although the points we
have just raised concerning prophets and
prophecy are the only ones which
have any direct bearing on the end in view, namely, the separation of
Philosophy from
Theology, still,
as I have touched on the general question,
I may here inquire whether the gift of
prophecy
was peculiar to the Hebrews,
or whether it was common to all nations. I must then come to a
conclusion about the vocation of the Hebrews, all of which I shall do in the
ensuing chapter.